Howard Dean on supporting Dems "who may disagree with us on a fundamental issue"

[ProSense]

DEAN: The Pro-Life candidates that I was interested in supporting were people who agreed with the Democratic platform in almost every other respect. Therefore, it's very clear, that even a Pro-Life Democrat who may disagree with us on a fundamental issue is a huge improvement over the person who was there before. So, are there some Democrats I would not support? Yes—and No I'm not gonna tell you who they are. But there are not many. Most of the Democrats who are Pro-Life—are very very good on a lot of other issues and I don't want to exclude people like that from out party.

- more -

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/606/transcript.html

Wendy Davis is pro-choice, but pro-gun. Should Democrats withhold their support?

The 50-state strategy carried a lot of blue dogs to Congress.

Howard Dean, vindicated

Only weeks after the Democratic National Committee chose Howard Dean as its chairman last year, the nasty whispers began to circulate around Washington and among longtime party donors and activists in cities from New York to Los Angeles. “He’s going to be a disaster,” they muttered. “He can’t raise any money. He doesn’t know what he’s doing. And what does he mean by this crazy 50-state strategy?”

Those early days must have been painful for the former Vermont governor — still smarting back then from his presidential primary defeat and that endlessly looped “scream” video — and he endured a barrage of snarks and snipes from the Democratic congressional leadership as well. Unfortunately for Dean, he doesn’t play the Washington press corps nearly as well as do rivals like Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., who ran the House Democrats’ campaign committee, or Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who performed the same role in the Senate.

<...>

Breaking that advantage would be costly and difficult, as Dean well realized, but it had to be done someday, or the Democrats would fulfill Karl Rove’s dream of becoming a permanent minority party — or fading away altogether. Against the counsel of party professionals, whose long losing streak has done little to diminish their influence, the new chairman began the process of re-creating the Democratic Party in 2005. And contrary to the gossip and subsequent press reports, he succeeded in raising $51 million last year, about 20 percent more than in 2003 and a party record for an off year.

Much of that money was spent in ways that obviously paid off on Tuesday, including the 2005 election of Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine in Virginia — where Jim Webb’s upset victory over incumbent Sen. George Allen overturned Republican control of the Senate. Several million dollars was spent on rebuilding the party’s national voter files, yet another essential sector in which the Republicans have enormous technological superiority.

- more -

http://www.salon.com/2006/11/10/dean_dems/

You can see the candidates won the House and Senate in 2006:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2006#Seats_that_changed_party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2006#Race_summary

A lot of them lost in 2010. I have to admit that I was glad to see Jason Altmire lose.

http://my.democrats.org/page/event/detail/4jg8j

Jim Webb, who retired in 2012, was also no great loss. The two current Senators from VA are of a similar mold.

[Cha]

1. Thank you, ProSense!

[ProSense]

2. You're welcome

It seems that some people misremember what the 50-State Strategy was about.

[longship]

3. I am a fierce liberal.

But hell if I would trade away a Democratic majority to elect more liberals. We'll take what we can get. When Dean put into place the 50-state strategy, it worked. Yes, there were blue dogs, but we held the House and the Senate. That's what was important. What happened in 2010 was a shame.

The Reps did not pick up a single seat in the House or Senate in 2006.

[karynnj]

43. it wasn't even a trade off

I can't think of any case where the more conservative Democrat recruited by Dean and others won a seat that a true liberal would have won.

However, Dean had the political swing working for him in both 2006 and 2008. Where Bush and the Republicans in Congress still still had reasonable support in 2004, by 2006 they were discredited. The really smart thing that Dean had done starting in early 2005 when the Democrats were demoralized was to put money in states and districts that others thought impossible - if their were a credible candidate. He also rebuilt the Democrat state parties everywhere - which was greatly needed as many were a mess. This meant that when the tide turned, we were ready.

Part of the problem in 2010 was that things were horrible and people shifted against the Democrats who were then in control of everything. The huge emphasis on local state parties (by Dean) might - had he have stayed in control - have led to better GOTV etc. Where we would still have lost some strength, we might have kept the House and might have done better on state legislatures and Governors - important because of redistricting.

[longship]

44. That would be my reading of it, too. nt

[ellisonz]

4. It's real simple, we need to control Congress and the White House...

...in principle, if not always in practice, otherwise we get results like the Bush Years again.

Edit: Doing this will in turn, also allow us to turn over SCOTUS.

[DFW]

24. If we can regain a majority on the Supreme Court

That would dwarf the loss of the House.

I'd give Bonehead twenty more seats in exchange for a Bader-Ginsburg clone replacing Sam Alito or Clarence Thomas.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. If you want the votes of the left, run left wing candidates.

Instead of the usual "not as bad" 3rd Way, DLC, Centrist hacks.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

[nomorenomore08]

7. Only problem is, how many votes will they get from the larger public?

We currently have only one self-identified socialist (Bernie Sanders) in Congress, and he's from one of the smallest, most liberal states in the country.

For the record, I consider myself a Social Democrat and I voted for Obama twice, despite finding him too conservative in many respects.

[Enthusiast]

13. Bernie's positions are mainstream centrist.

When we poll the American people we see that Bernie's positions are not those of some wild eyed radical liberal but as centrist as can be.

Most Americans want a European style single payer health care system. Most Americans want the wealthy to pay more in taxes—"their fair share", as Bernie puts it. Most Americans are against the stinkin' free trade deals. And most Americans want to preserve social security and medicare. That tells us that Bernie's positions are centrist.

I guess Bernie's mild version of socialism really resonates with the American people.

[nomorenomore08]

16. I agree that that's the reality. But what about the *perception*?

The right wing - and a lot of people we call "moderates" are really conservatives - has gotten so good at twisting and distorting things that, in many cases, the obfuscation is nearly impossible to break through.

[Enthusiast]

18. Yes, we are being propagandized 24/7-365 by the right wing misinformation machine.

That's why we must keep the message clean here on DU. Perception must change. It is our duty to change it for we are patriots.

[ProSense]

30. What nonsense. I mean

"18. Yes, we are being propagandized 24/7-365 by the right wing misinformation machine. That's why we must keep the message clean here on DU. Perception must change. It is our duty to change it for we are patriots."

...people were just swooning over a pro-NRA presidential candidate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024333473

MT: Schweitzer leads fight against new federal fracking red tape
http://watchdog.org/24671/mt-schweitzer-leads-fight-against-new-federal-fracking-red-tape/

Brian Schweitzer, Would-Be Liberal Hero, is an NRA Darling
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116138/brian-schweitzer-2016-populist-hopeful-nra-darling

Montana's "Coal Cowboy" Gov. Schweitzer on huge new mine "The Land Board has made its decision."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/20/1122184/-Montana-s-Coal-Cowboy-Gov-Schweitzer-on-huge-coal-mine-The-Land-Board-has-made-its-decision

What's the difference between Schweitzer and Wendy Davis?

[Enthusiast]

38. Just look at that dog! And such a sweet lady too.

Schweitzer favors single payer!

[ProSense]

39. LOL!

"Schweitzer favors single payer!"

So pro-NRA, pro-deregulation of fracking, pro Keystone are OK if one supports "single payer"?

Obama just launched single-payer in America
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024088437

Uh... we should be thanking *Bernie Sanders and Ron Wyden* for single payer in America.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024088636

[ProSense]

9. Until a "left wing" candidate challenges Wendy Davis

she is the candidate people will throw their support behind.

In Florida, Charlie Crist is running against Nan Rich.

Florida Democrats are supporting Crist. Why?

Charlie Crist ‘not even thinking’ about debating Nan Rich in Democratic primary for governor

Democratic newcomer Charlie Crist says he has no plans to debate his leading rival, Nan Rich, in a party primary as they both run for governor.

“I’m not even thinking about that right now, to be honest with you,” Crist told reporters Tuesday evening outside a Greenspoon Marder law firm fundraiser in Fort Lauderdale.

“I am focused on doing everything I can to help the people of Florida,” he said. “And this is not really a race about candidates. This is a race about the people of our state.”

Reached by phone, Rich — a longtime Democrat and former party leader in the state Senate from Weston — took issue with Crist’s stance.

- more -

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/01/29/3900519/charlie-crist-not-even-thinking.html

I've seen Crist lauded here, and the reason given is that he can win, but Rich doesn't stand a chance.

Still, anyone is free to run, and given the state of the Internet, could mount a decent campaign.

Wendy Davis was a relative unknown a year ago.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. Liberal Dems are outnumbered by moderate and

Conservative Dems nationwide according to polling madinflorida provided. On top of that, in moderate to conservative-leaning districts the Dems must attract independents to win.

If liberal candidates are chosen in primaries in those districts they will lose the general.

[Phlem]

11. So your pro right wing?

"If liberal candidates are chosen in primaries in those districts they will lose the general."

Yeay!? Hoorahh, go right of center!? That's how we go left!?

Way to be supportive. What website am I at again? Aw never mind, who the fuck cares anyway.



-p

[Pretzel_Warrior]

12. What are you talking about? The discussion I was having was

About the tougher races for Dems in more conservative areas than NYC, Seattle, and Los Angeles.

I would absolutely love to have more liberal candidates win in as many places as possible. But here is where that ugly word "pragmatism" comes in again. It would be stupid to have a liberal candidate run and win in primary in a race where the overwhelming evidence is the voters will go for a more conservative candidate. You are throwing away any reasonable chance at winning that seat.

Multiplied across a map, that can mean the difference between Dems or GOP controlling the Senate.

[Enthusiast]

15. +1 an entire shit load!

I am confused too.

[Enthusiast]

14. Link?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

17. I'm on my iPhone and search is difficult

It was in Washington Post, I believe.

[Enthusiast]

19. Okay.

I can't find the article on the Washington Post.

Regardless, any such "poll" would certainly be suspect. On the major issues the people of every political strip are decidedly more liberal than just a few years ago. You name the significant issue, we will evaluate it.

[joshcryer]

23. False, the Progressive Caucus is the largest in Congress.

Now if you mean "Progressive Americans are outnumbered by moderates and conservatives nationwide" then that makes sense.

[ProSense]

26. That's true. In fact, the Progressive Caucus has grown larger over time.

The choice here isn't between a progressive and conservative Dem. Most of the cases were about unseating a popular Republican in a red state or right-leaning district. That was the case with Altmire.

[Warpy]

6. Sorry, Doc, but I'll never cross that pro choice line

It would be like crossing the abolitionist line in the 1850s. Cancelling civil rights of citizens just because they happen to be pregnant is another slavery issue. While some men might find it palatable when their own issues are addressed, I don't and never shall.

Fortunately, few antichoice "Democrats" are more than talk when it comes to other issues and they usually betray themselves in the primaries.

[nomorenomore08]

8. +1

As usual, I agree with you...

[Enthusiast]

20. How do you feel about abandoning labor?

Pushing for new free trade laws? Cutting entitlements? Allowing environmentally questionable projects to proceed? You know, in addition to the pro-choice question.

[dsc]

29. That is a very good question

one which you are very unlikely to have answered.

[Warpy]

42. Only when labor doesn't give a shit

about abandoning half the population in this country.

C'mon, this is absolutely central to civil rights, the right to self determination in our own bodies.

[dsc]

45. This isn't exactly what that poster was asking

they were asking if you have a candidate who is pro choice down the line but bad on economic issues should that candidate be similarly not endorsed, not voted for, etc. Say the Kay Hagans, Mark Warners, and Senator Nelsons of the world. I think that is a very fair question and one which most of the people who take your position refuse to give a direct answer to. You are basically saying to people who support Casey and Kaptur that they should let those candidates be thrown out of the party despite being nearly perfect liberals on all other issues (especially Kaptur in this regard) and I think in return they should get to ask your opinion of those who are good pretty much only on your issue.

[Warpy]

46. Have you ever seen a candidate who was pro choice

be bad on other issue down the line?

Didn't think so.

They only crap on women when they're religious, so men tend to think they're OK. Well, they're not.

[dsc]

47. Alan Simpson

Last edited Mon Mar 3, 2014, 06:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Alan Simpson would be (he is pro choice for all his myriad of faults). Both Hagan and Nelson are pro choice down the line and down right horrible on union issues. So yes, I would like an honest answer and not a dismissal of the question.

On edit here is Mark Warner as an example

http://votesmart.org/candidate/535/mark-warner?categoryId=2&type=V,S,R,E,F,P,E#.UxT6oBso7IU

Note the plethora of 0's for right to life and 100's for NARAL

Here is his composite liberal score

http://votesmart.org/candidate/535/mark-warner?categoryId=45&type=V,S,R,E,F,P,E,E,E,E#.UxT8axso7IU

Here is Casey's composite liberal score

http://votesmart.org/candidate/2541/bob-casey-jr?categoryId=45&type=V,S,R,E,F,P#.UxT9GBso7IU

Note how much higher his scores are than Warner's.

[Warpy]

48. Check out his voting record prior to the Cat Food Commission

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/53363/alan-simpson

There is a lot of pro labor stuff in there.

[dsc]

49. that is absurd

I looked at his key votes on unions

2 were for a bill vetoed by Clinton that permitted labor management councils that worked around unions.



1 was for the aviation bill in 96 which banned fed ex employees from forming unions.

That is out of 4 votes.

[Warpy]

50. Supporting labor is not 100% supporting unions

although unions are what need to be rebuilt in this country and without mob involvement this time, TYVM.

Check again without that particular bias. Or don't.

[dsc]

52. yes his vote against banning replacement workers was wonderful for labor

as was his vote against unionizing fed ex which lowered wages throughout the industry. Oh, and I really love his numerous votes over the years to cut social security and his advocating for that now. I am sure that would be wonderful for workers.

[dsc]

53. BTW here are his ratings from all groups

https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/53363/alan-simpson#.UxUMgRso7IU

Here are some of my personal favorites among his rankings.

1996 American Civil Liberties Union - Positions 58%
1995-1996 Human Rights Campaign - Positions 40%
1995-1996 Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights - Positions 7%
1995-1996 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) - Positions 20%
1991-1992 National Gay & Lesbian Task Force - Positions 18%


But as long as you get yours I guess it is all good.

[Warpy]

40. My civil rights trump all that stuff.

Sorry about that.

[Freddie]

22. PA Sen. Bob Casey is "pro-life"

But he's not a nutcase about it. Dosen't suggest defunding PP or personhood amendments. He's a devout Catholic and I can respect where he's coming from although I disagree. And he votes "real" pro-life too, in terms of helping to feed children, pro-education and health care. I happily vote for him.

[ProSense]

27. He's a perfect example.

"But he's not a nutcase about it. Dosen't suggest defunding PP or personhood amendments. He's a devout Catholic and I can respect where he's coming from although I disagree. And he votes "real" pro-life too, in terms of helping to feed children, pro-education and health care. I happily vote for him. "

Casey was recruited to unseat Santorum. While a lot of Democrats expressed concern about his "pro-life" stance, they cheered him to victory. He crushed Santorum.

Unlike huge disappointments like Altmire, he has supported Democratic policies in much the same way Harry Reid has. Casey is also a strong ally of Sherrod Brown on trade issues.

[FSogol]

32. Same with VA's Tim Kaine. n/t

[Warpy]

51. If they promise not to insert their church dogma into civil law

I really have no problem with any privately held religious opinion.

It's the zealots who want their church dogma to become the law of the land for everyone, even the non believers, that disqualify themselves completely.

[Squinch]

41. +1

[Cheese4TheRat]

21. I reject a 50 state strategy that produces a 1980s Republicanized Democratic Party.

Sorry. As a Democrat I want Democrats elected in 50 states, not Republicans from the 1980s.

[winter is coming]

25. Howard Dean is not the keeper of my conscience.

And statements like this make me wonder who's the keeper of his.

[sufrommich]

28. I really wish dems wouldn't use the term "pro life".

They aren't pro life,they're anti choice.

[FSogol]

31. K&R. n/t

[tblue37]

33. "Professionals" with "long losing streaks" NEVER see their influence diminish,

as long as they continue to scratch the backs of the wealthy, the well-connected, and the powerful. Look at Bill Kristol. He has never been right about anything, and he is still pushing some of his worst disasters (Palin, for example) as though they were brilliant triumphs, yet he still stars in the M$M as a guest pundit all over the dial and as a writer of NYT guest op eds, as well as being defered to as an influentual establishment "elder" in the Teapublican Party.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. Not sure if you missed this, but LGBT Americans voted for Obama in huge numbers while

he paraded around ranting about Sanctity with Rick Warren. Being a Democrat will very often involve voting for a person who is proclaiming something I disagree with. Sometimes the bargain is worth striking, in Obama's case on gay issues it has turned out very well. Obama is a rare sort of politician, however.
So sure, voting for someone who has a basic disagreement can be part of the routine however I fully take issue with the conclusion that this means we have to run conservative types in some places because 'we know only they can win'. That theory stopped working in 2010, when so many of them lost. 'The only sort of candidate who can win is the sort that lost the last few times' is not something I can agree with. Taking no risk leads to making no gains.

[ProSense]

35. Well,

"Being a Democrat will very often involve voting for a person who is proclaiming something I disagree with. Sometimes the bargain is worth striking, in Obama's case on gay issues it has turned out very well. "

...you're making my point. I think a lot of people are contradicting themselves.

What's the difference between Wendy Davis and Brian Schweitzer?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024589864

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Ah, so this is just some more Meta style infighting? I have no idea who supports the one

but not the other. I get annoyed with these Meta posts posing as actual questions nearly as much as I get annoyed with Moderates making a stink that liberals are purists of some sort directly after we voted for a guy who was literally opposing our equal rights. Yeah, we never compromise. I assume this next round of primaries I will get to vote for a candidate who is supportive of my rights being equal to their own, when that happens it will be the first time I have ever voted for a Presidential candidate who was not opposed to my rights and using them as fodder for their own advancement all at the same time. Hillary, John Kerry, Edwards, Carter, Biden. they all sneered and talked about being Baptists and such when asked about equal rights. In his freaking debate, Biden shouted that he and Obama agree with Palin in opposing marriage equality. He shouted it out. 'I agree and so does Senator Obama!!!!!' And yet we voted for them. Never let up the criticism, for which we were called names, purist being one of the kinder ones, voted for them in spite of, got called purists anyway.
I'm cranky this morning, so take it all with a grain of crank.

[ProSense]

37. There is nothing "meta" about asking a question about support for one person or another. n/t